It's a conclusion-themed Firewall & Iceberg Podcast — the first of two this week — as Dan and I wrap up our discussion of press tour, conclude our review of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" season 1 (and table the idea of moving straight onto season 2) and review the final chapter of Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy with some "The Dark Knight Rises" commentary. Oh, and we also talk about the best "Breaking Bad" of the season to date.

Alan Sepinwall has been reviewing television since the mid-'90s, first for Tony Soprano's hometown paper, The Star-Ledger, and now for HitFix. His new book, "The Revolution Was Televised," about the last 15 years of TV drama, is for sale at Amazon. He can be reached at sepinwall@hitfix.com

as mentioned in dan's thread, no olympics talk yet? not necessarily about the sports, but all the talk about nbc's plausibly live model, the british journo banned by twitter for neg comments, the usual programming as reality tv not real sports, michael phelps, jingoism in broadcasting, etc...

i presume press week restricts your watching of the games for a full discussion.

Atta - That's not the way this works. Do I want more Green Lanterns and Ghost Riders? NO. F*** NO. That doesn't make "Dark Knight Rises" immune to criticism. I assure you that I'm aware that "Dark Knight Rises" is a better movie in all ways than "Green Lantern" and "Ghost Rider." But that doesn't mean I'm supposed to twiddle my thumbs and ignore that, for ME -- my opinions represent only my opinions -- "Dark Knight Rises" aims high and largely fails.

So now. I wouldn't prefer more Green Lanterns and Ghost Riders. I would prefer more Dark Knights. And what I'd *really* prefer is a Dark Knight Rises which, for me, succeeds at its goals.

But in any case, I think I went into appropriate depth in the podcast.

If anything they were too kind about TDKR. They didn't mention all the gaping plot holes (his lack of knee cartilage seemed to disappear as an issue in jail, to name one). I was hesitant about that part because I was worried they'd just be fanboys but they kept their critical faculties and did a solid job.

the 'gaping plot holes' would have been the criticism that I could have accepted about this movie, instead they focused predominantly on the absence of the Joker which was completely out of Nolan's hands.

Listen, I enjoyed the movie and thought it was a satisfactory conclusion.

I have a laundry list of problems with this movie, but I ended up seeing it twice (long story) and found I didn't hate it the second time around. The problems were still there, but most of it just bothered me less. Maybe 'cause my expectations were already dashed? *shrug*

Still po'd about the underuse of Tom Hardy, though. From the way Nolan was talking in interviews, I could've sworn he'd given the guy a lot more to do.

Anyone that complains about the timeline needs to see it again cause there's really no major timegaps that happen that aren't easily explainable. I really dont see at all how the joker or twoface would have fit in this film or been necessary to end Bruce Wayne's journey which this movie did. It ledger would have been alive, I'm not sure he would have had more than a cameo in this film.

ChrisPepper - I don't think we "predominantly" talked about the absence of Joker as the movie's problem. I think that I said I felt it was the core from which other problems sprung. But guess what? That isn't out of Nolan's hands at all. Yes, Ledger's death is out of his hands, but everything after that was completely *in* his hands, as in there was nothing he could do about Ledger dying, but he still had to make the movie he wanted to make. That doesn't mean he needed to recast the Joker or anything callous like that. It just means that, in my opinion, he had to do a better job of structuring the movie with his absence. Nolan still wrote this movie, so the writing of the movie is in his hands.

And Atta - You don't see how Joker or Two-Face would have fit? Every villain from the first movie appears in the third movie either alive or in a cameo. Two-Face (or, rather, Harvey Dent) is the emotional linchpin of the second movie, even off-screen and all of the things he did in the second movie are referenced. And yet Joker isn't able to be seen and Nolan decided he didn't want to reference him, even in contexts where, IMO, it would have been organic to do so. If you don't feel like there's a gaping hole there, well... I'm glad you enjoyed the movie!

Dan, what good would a few throwaway lines about the Joker be when his corruption of Harvey Dent and killing of Rachel were the main results that bared more consequences. Oh yeah this movie would have been much better if Gordan or Alfred would have brought up the Joker for a couple of seconds so everyone in the audience could remember how cool that performance of Ledgers was. Was the Scarecrow even mentioned by name in either sequal? He was a wink to the audience, not important whatsoever. Heck, the Joker never even had an actual origin story given to him in the Dark Knight, does he really need an epilogue in the sequel? He was an "unstoppable force" that came through Gotham and destroyed what he could. Nolan left him a pretty big mystery to begin with, so why bother going on after that?

Atta - Once again, you have a weird absolutism that perplexes me. I *don't* want a badly done acknowledgement of the presence of the Joker, no. Just like I don't believe disliking "Dark Knight Rises" means that what I desperately want is more Green Lanterns and Ghost Riders. I want either a *well-done* acknowledgement, or else I want a third film with an arc that doesn't have a gaping hole where The Joker used to be. And Scarecrow in the third movie is not a wink to the audience. The character is a force of anarchy in the first movie and a force of perverted law and order in the third movie. It is, again, about the arc of the three movie story.

In any case, I'm not going to convince you to dislike a movie you like and I assure you, you aren't going to make me like a movie which, sadly, didn't work for me.

Way too harsh on the movie. It is fairly clear that both of you guys went in with enormous expectations. Anyone with an understanding of the characters knew that pulling this one off with a character like Bane would be very hard to do. Nolan mostly pulls it off, in my opinion.

And some people went into the movie spoiler-free, which always enhances the experience.

Dunn - Alan said he went in spoiler-free. I said I went in spoiler-free except for that one plot-point I mentioned. And no good movie can be ruined by having a plot point spoiled. "Citizen Kane" is the greatest movie ever made whether you know what Rosebud is or not.

And movies shouldn't get degree-of-difficulty points if they don't quite work. Nolan doesn't get credit for making do with Bane when he was the one who chose Bane in the first place, rather than building the movie around any other member of Batman's large and diverse rogues gallery.

Dan, we all know by now that Vertigo is the greatest movie ever made. If you would just stop harshing everyone's Batman buzz for a second, maybe you'd know it too!

Anyway, I agree on spoilers being overrated. I knew everything about The Dark Knight, plot-wise, and still mostly loved it, and I didn't start watching Lost until the final season, knew most of what happened up until that point before my catch-up marathon, and it's still one of my favorites.

If you can't use the Joker, retroactively stick in Harley Quinn as a surrogate.

Occupy Bane in his sheepskin coat and without his lucha mask almost isn't the same character as in the comic. And they did go the massive pro wrestler in a mask route for Bane in the Clooney Batman movie (the late Jeep Swenson).

Great review of TDKR. I thought Dan was too hard on Avengers, but you're both spot-on with this film. The absence of the Joker is especially felt because of that great line at the end of TDK: "You and I are meant to do this FOREVER!" There was such a cool Road-Runner-and-Coyote vibe to that statement, that is unfortunately destroyed by Bruce quitting at the end of TDKR. (And I more or less LIKED the ending of TDKR. But it's one of many ideological contradictions in Nolan's trilogy, which would be easy to ignore if he weren't trying so hard to build up a consistent trilogy).

Another HUGE problem for me is that the film (and the trilogy) remind us again and again that Batman doesn't kill. Doesn't use guns. And yet Bruce doesn't feel any remorse for killing Harvey. Sure, it was a necessary action. But there should be SOME mental repercussions for Bruce, SOME soul-searching. Worse, we get Batman killing Talia WITH GUNS...all of five minutes after Selina has gone out of her way to REMIND US that Batman doesn't use guns (of course, she says that while she's using the guns that Bruce mounted on the cycle). Talk about contradictory. Why make such a big deal out of a character trait if you're just gonna crap all over it at the end?

Another huge complaint for me is Bruce being stripped of his funds, pending legal investigation. There would be NO legal investigation if there was a stock market break-in. The day's trading would simply be negated.

I'm a little surprised that people were so hard on PROMETHEUS while giving TDKR a free pass. For me they're both on basically the same level: Fun action movies with a little food for thought, and a TON of gaps in logic.

I'm kind of confused with these HUGE problems you have with the movie (and a couple of Dan's complaints as well). Are you annoyed by the absence of the Joker (something that couldn't be helped) or that Bruce Wayne quit being Batman? The Joker was the one who said that line and I seriously doubt Batman agreed with him. One of the key elements of the second movie was that Bruce was trying to quit and pass his mission onto someone who didn't have to wear a mask. I see no contradiction between that and him passing on the mantle to Blake at the end of this film, after he once again saved the city from complete destruction.

And Wayne not feeling any remorse for Harvey's death? I don't think he hung up the cape and cowl and locked himself away in Wayne Manor as a result of both Harvey and Rachel's deaths having NO effect on him, you know what I mean? I'd also like to know what this 'soul-searching' is you mention.

I think there's a difference between intentionally trying to kill someone with a gun and trying to stop a nuclear bomb from successfully going off. Batman was not trying to kill Talia. He was trying to maneuver the truck carrying the bomb back to the reactor core so it could be stabilized. That Talia was even in the truck is more unfortunate (for her) than anything else.

And really, the funds thing sounds like a nitpick, hardly something that really needs to be mentioned as one of the movie's flaws.

I'm not really sure how Dan and Alan approach their reviews in the podcasts, but they don't sound like there's much planning to them beforehand, so while I don't have any problem with the fact that they didn't like the film, the actual review felt half-baked. I thought it was a little unfair to criticize the movie because the Joker didn't play a role in it. Dan mentions that the way to work around this is to not try to bring the story back to Batman Begins, but there's no elaboration. There are of course a million things Nolan could have done differently (with a Joker or without one), but I personally liked that he tried to thematically link the end of his story with the beginning. I also think it would have been nice if you guys would have mentioned Christian Bale at least once during the entire review, whether you liked his performance or not. I don't think there's any other review of this movie in the world that doesn't at least mention the lead actor.

As for setpieces, I thought it would've been a given that you would've mentioned the opening, which I thought set the stage beautifully and was an incredible bit of stuntwork. And I thought the stock exchange robbery was pretty great as well.

I personally loved the movie, and how Nolan ended Bruce Wayne's story. I recognize many of the criticisms being made against it but as is the case with any work of art, I ignore many so-called flaws if the experience as a whole ends up working for me and surely Dan and Alan are as selective with what they choose to ignore or not ignore like I do. Dan, I would've liked to have heard more about why The Prestige is your favorite Nolan flick since it too has structural and writing problems. For me, I think that movie is very difficult to appreciate or enjoy after only one viewing, something that by itself can be considered a flaw. It took me a second viewing to really get wrapped up in what Nolan was trying to do (I think it can be easily argued that The Prestige is Nolan's most ambitious movie), and now I like it very much. But I also recognize its writing problems as well, especially with regards to its ending. The big twists are more or less explained through a ton of expositional dialogue between Borden and Angier, and one of those twists is effectively a massive cheat that changes the movie from period piece to science fiction. In the case of both The Prestige and TDKR, it's easier to overlook the unsubtle approach to dialogue since I actually think the Nolan brothers can be very good with words (I love Angier's final little speech, for instance), so I'm curious what you thought the key differences are that made one film work for you and not the other.

And one last thing. I don't think Catwoman was meant to represent a happy ending for Bruce Wayne so much as a fresh start. Selina's motivations for most of her actions in the movie had to do with the Clean Slate macguffin which would've allowed her to erase her past and start anew, and I think this ties in with the Bruce Wayne we see in that second to last scene (clunkiness aside), the Bruce Wayne who wanted to ensure that Gotham would have its protector but also wanted that life that Alfred so rigorously explained that he wanted for him.

Sorry this was so long. I'm a longtime reader but this is my first comment and I didn't want it to come off like a fanboy who was annoyed that you guys didn't love the movie as much as he did.

Ryan - Christian Bale played a role he's played three times and played it in a way similar to the way he played it the two previous times, albeit with a limp. That didn't seem necessary to mention.

And -- and I SWEAR this is the last time I'm going to say this -- the absence of The Joker is not Chris Nolan's fault. His handling of the absence of the Joker and the gaping hole it left in the Tie Everything Together approach to the third film IS is fault.

In any case, you liked the movie more than we did. Lots of people did. And Alan liked it more than I did. So it goes!

Guys i might be wrong about this but I thought the Hank was told he WOULD be giving up his day to day tasks to deal with more politcial aspects of the job. So thats why he was distraught. Also- the GPS was pretty obvious when it clearly said GARMIN on it.

Dan- I'd be interested to know what you think about Breaking bad taking 4 seasons to tell a 1 year story but apparently only taking the next 12 to tell a whole other year. I am assuming we will have some pretty big gaps?

Dan, Alan. Another good podcast. I know I'm getting my comment in behind the release of the next one, but I was listening to you on my way to work this morning.

About Breaking Bad: I said in the review thread for "Fifty-one" that the reason Walt thinks he has Skyler under his thumb is her being complicit in what happened to Ted. It's also sort of becoming the last straw for her, the fact that A) he doesn't seem to care, it makes her realize he really doesn't have a conscience and B) he is obviously willing to use it against her. She is a smart woman, she is aware, she knows that's what he is doing, and she has realized he is no longer worthy of her sympathy and that led to that MAGNIFICENT scene where she tells him she's biding her time. The ticking clock motif, both as soundtrack and symbolism, is very "Ingmar Bergman", almost "cliche Bergman" if you will, but I didn't think the symbolism was too overt. In fact I think that might be a workplace hazard for you two, as you spend so much time reasoning about TV and picking episodes apart that you might feel stuff like that is heavy handed when it's actually pretty cool. But that's my opinion and not meant as criticism, just an observation about the nature of your job as it appears to an outsider. Who lives in Sweden.

Also, you're waay too harsh on TDKR. You say you were disappointed. -No. You weren't disappointed, you liked it. You liked it a lot. In fact, you thought it was awesome. So there. JK, I won't give you crap for that review. I don't agree, but I have my very own hangups about the reception of that film and some of the negative criticism it's been getting, so I'm actually staying out of the debate.As the guy says "I want everybody to be friends. You, me, the Dane..." And if you don't know that quote, however, I WILL give you crap.

I don't agree with everything Dan said TDKR, particularly about Catwoman, but there were some good points made. I have a hard time buying that the cops were keeping themselves shaved down there. Still a very good movie in my opinion. Listening to old episodes, enjoying it.